I decided to make this clear to all those out there who dislike or are confused by atheism and science.

1. If atheists are so right then why don't they disprove God.

You cannot disprove something that is NOT proven. It is impossible. The burden of proof ALWAYS lies on the person or persons who make the assertion. In God's case this means theists and not atheists.

2. Isn't the Bible proof of God's existence.

NO. If this is your only evidence then Islam, Mormons and Scientologist have the SAME amount of evidence you do. The bible has no more evidence for God's existence than the book Tom Sawyer does for the existence of Tom Sawyer.

3. We have good and evil doesn't this suggest some type of presence in the universe.

NO. Good and evil are completely subjective. We have evolved as social creatures. We deem things that are better for our survival and social functions as good; things that are bad as evil.

4. Why do so many people believe if it is not true?

The nature of theism is a meme complex a mind virus. It is an idea that spreads like a virus through a culture. Urban legends are an example of a mind virus. This coupled with excommunication and execution of heretics led us to a point where it is much easier to profess what the group believes.

5. Is science a religion?

No. The word religion stems from latin word "religio" meaning reverence for the Gods. Science MAY be considered to some a philosophy but this is not true either. Science cannot be catagorized into either of these two thought processes. Science is it's OWN thought process.

6. Why are atheists such assholes about their disbelief?

Because they SEE outside of your box more clearly. They see the terrible atrocity committed by relgions (past and present) for the garbage it is. They do not blame the devil. They blame the sole people responsible.......Theists.

Also nobody likes to have their life affected by another person's fantasy (that is what it is until you PROVE otherwise).

7. Why do I feel better after I pray to God if he is not real?

The same reason ANY other religion and/or philosophy feels better after SELF-REFLECTION, you see things more clearly in your life if you step back and observe it. It is the same principle and result behind any mantra, prayer or meditiation. Your prayers are NOTHING new or special.

8. Why do atheists seem to pick on xtians more than the others?

For me (and I assume others) it is b/c Xtians have demonstrated for over a thousand years it's complete inablility to effectivly lead humanity and yet it continues to try and do so. Xtians affect me more than ANY other fantasy belief system out there.

9. There was a beginning to the universe doesn't that suggest a creator?

Not to science. The bang is an event. The universe COULD BE eternal and the big bang a cyclical event. There is not much evidence to suggest this however, there is ZERO evidence to assert an intelligent creator.

10. How do I disprove evolution?]

This is VERY simple. Dig down to the Jurassic or Cambrien layers of the Earth and find me a modern day human skeleton. A modern day dog skeleton. It is that simple. In all of the fossil beds and dig sites all over the world there has YET TO BE a fossil that is out of place in evolution. That is to say that the oldest layers of the Earth hold fossils of the simplest creatures. The upper layers get more and more complex until you get the present layer. Complex vertabrates are NOT found in the Pre-Cambrien layers.

I hope this helps many theists out there who are struggling to grasp the REASON behind an atheist view. I would suggest to any theist looking for help to first read up on a meme complex so you can identify your problem. Then read an 8th grade science book. Look up scientific method. Apply this to your reasearch into astrotheology, crusades, inquisition, and evolution. Look up the wealth of YOUR church's corporate headquarters (yes you are a member of that).

Does anyone have any reading suggestions for a theist looking to grow up, beyond a science book?

5. Is science a religion?

No. The word religion stems from latin word "religio" meaning reverence for the Gods. Science MAY be considered to some a philosophy but this is not true either. Science cannot be catagorized into either of these two thought processes. Science is it's OWN thought process.

The development of the scientific method was pretty dependent on philosophical contributions from people such as Aristotle, Descartes and Popper. Some people, such as Paul Feyerabend, have maintained Newtonian Physics to be no more advanced than the Greek system of explaining nature in terms of Gods, such as Thor for thunder. I’m not saying he’s right, but you’re going to have to do a little more than merely assert it’s different.


6. Why are atheists such assholes about their disbelief?

Because they SEE outside of your box more clearly. They see the terrible atrocity committed by relgions (past and present) for the garbage it is. They do not blame the devil. They blame the sole people responsible.......Theists.

Also nobody likes to have their life affected by another person's fantasy (that is what it is until you PROVE otherwise).

A better response to this question would be to ask the questioner why they like to generalize people who simply share one disbelief. But beside the use of a meme mind virus being a little bias and subjective, as that can be applied to communism, capitalism, etc., the rest of what you have said seems ok. Although maybe a more apt response to the question of why atheists are perceived to critique Christianity more than any other religion may be that that’s the dominant religion in the western culture both the person asking the question and the atheists he knows live in.

The development of the scientific method was pretty dependent on philosophical contributions from people such as Aristotle, Descartes and Popper. Some people, such as Paul Feyerabend, have maintained Newtonian Physics to be no more advanced than the Greek system of explaining nature in terms of Gods, such as Thor for thunder. I’m not saying he’s right, but you’re going to have to do a little more than merely assert it’s different.

Science is most certainly NOT a religion. A religion from it's very root and usage today suggests reverance of gods. Science has no Gods.

Scientific method is most certainly derived from philosophical contributions from great thinkers but in it's present form is the most logical and rational thought process we have discovered to date. Science has surpassed all other philosophical ways of thinking as can be seen by our lack of great philosophers today.

Feyerabend's position is generally seen as radical in the philosophy of science. Not to say he does not have interesting points some of which may be valid he is a philosopher trying to critique science. Since his views are still a huge minority and seen as radical I would say he failed in his half baked idea that relates science to greeks explaining thunder as the big hammer of an immortal man who lives on a mountain and fucks with mortals.

Science is the hieght and perfection of philosophical methology for determining fact from fiction.

You're wasting your time. :rolleyes:

The development of the scientific method was pretty dependent on philosophical contributions from people such as Aristotle, Descartes and Popper. Some people, such as Paul Feyerabend, have maintained Newtonian Physics to be no more advanced than the Greek system of explaining nature in terms of Gods, such as Thor for thunder. I’m not saying he’s right, but you’re going to have to do a little more than merely assert it’s different.


well you're going to have to do a little more than assert what some jackass said. Greek mythology and newtonian physics are both inaccurate, sure, but whereas one makes a large amount of presuppositions without any real predictive power, the other is able to predict the outcome of a range of macroscopic situations quantitatively. The latter also accomplishes this with far viewer (as well as logical presuppositions).Newtonian physics is obviously more advanced.

Science is most certainly NOT a religion. A religion from it's very root and usage today suggests reverance of gods. Science has no Gods.

That’s not my accusation. My accusation is that you’re making ill thought out statements about the nature of science.

Scientific method is most certainly derived from philosophical contributions from great thinkers but in it's present form is the most logical and rational thought process we have discovered to date. Science has surpassed all other philosophical ways of thinking as can be seen by our lack of great philosophers today.

I can think of many great philosophers from the second half of the 20th century: Quine, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Rorty, Habermas, Foucault, Popper, Deleuze, Lyotard and Baudrillard. Sadly, many of these philosophers have been misrepresented as postmodern nonsense. Also, the reason many of them haven’t contributed to the field of the epistemology of the method of the hard sciences is because they have been concerned with sociology, politics, history, media and other soft sciences. But, as Quine and Popper suffice to prove, there has been much rumination over the hard sciences.

Feyerabend's position is generally seen as radical in the philosophy of science. Not to say he does not have interesting points some of which may be valid he is a philosopher trying to critique science. Since his views are still a huge minority and seen as radical I would say he failed in his half baked idea that relates science to greeks explaining thunder as the big hammer of an immortal man who lives on a mountain and fucks with mortals.

So he’s wrong because his thought hasn’t been accepted by the majority? That sounds like the appeal to majority you yourself responded to in question four of your initial post.

Science is the hieght and perfection of philosophical methology for determining fact from fiction.

Get off your Enlightenment soapbox and do some research sometime. Many philosophers of science subscribe to instrumentalism, that is, that the job of science is not to sort fact from fiction but to produce useful tools for predicting events. If true, in doing so, scientists possibly ignore a lot of information and hold many fictions. Another view is that we cannot know what is true and what is false, we can only know what has been falsified and what has so far not been falsified. You may like to know that this is very popular among many scientists and came from 20th century philosopher Karl Popper. Then, of course, there’s Kuhn, who I do not agree with, but I’m certainly sure you haven’t considered, who has maintained that scientific progress is incommensurable.

My point with all of this is that you’re making statements about science I have so far not seen you support. Yet you scoff at Feyerabend simply because the majority of scientists do not accept his theory that physics is no different to Greek cosmology. You’ve arguably done little research into this area, yet you make assumptions such as that philosophy and science are distinct from one another. You may respond that you don’t want to get all academic, it’s just a little totse post, but I’d rather think twice before posting something that may not be true, because unquestioned assumptions about a method of acquiring knowledge and the knowledge it produces seems familiar to me…

well you're going to have to do a little more than assert what some jackass said. Greek mythology and newtonian physics are both inaccurate, sure, but whereas one makes a large amount of presuppositions without any real predictive power, the other is able to predict the outcome of a range of macroscopic situations quantitatively. The latter also accomplishes this with far viewer (as well as logical presuppositions).Newtonian physics is obviously more advanced.

I don't have to do that at all, since that would be beside the point.

That’s not my accusation. My accusation is that you’re making ill thought out statements about the nature of science.
Your accusation was that he "merely asserted it’s different".

He didn't just assert that science isn't a religion. He told us where the latin word "religio" stems from and in doing that showed how science is not a religion. Most common dictionary definitions of 'religion' will do the same.

Your accusation was that he "merely asserted it’s different".

He didn't just assert that science isn't a religion. He told us where the latin word "religio" stems from and in doing that showed how science is not a religion. Most common dictionary definitions of 'religion' will do the same.

I was also arguing about his distinction between philosophy and science. From subsequent posts, he clearly carries the typical bias of science being superior to philosophy. Plus, although I don't agree that science and religion are the same, using the dictionary for creating distinctions in such instances as these is far from tenable. In discussing what exactly mental illness is, there's not going to be much progress if we simply accept what the DMV says because what it has written down as the definition of insanity must be insanity because it says so. I'd rather examine various so called religions in depth, then make a comparison between it and science and philosophy.

If it were me, I would have made two FAQs in one thread. To mix statements about science in with statements about atheism in an FAQ that's supposed to be about atheism can easily misconstrue atheism.
Anyway, I'm just ranting now. I should back out before I make any more of an ass of myself.

Anyway, I'm just ranting now.
Yes, you are. The point is that you accused BrokeProphet of 'merely' asserting that science is not a religion when he did more than that.

Yes, you are. The point is that you accused BrokeProphet of 'merely' asserting that science is not a religion when he did more than that.

Right, he also stated that it cannot be categorized as philosophy and gave no reason for why.

philosophy and science both rely on reason and rational argument.

I can think of many great philosophers from the second half of the 20th century: Quine, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Rorty, Habermas, Foucault, Popper, Deleuze, Lyotard and Baudrillard. Sadly, many of these philosophers have been misrepresented as postmodern nonsense. Also, the reason many of them haven’t contributed to the field of the epistemology of the method of the hard sciences is because they have been concerned with sociology, politics, history, media and other soft sciences. But, as Quine and Popper suffice to prove, there has been much rumination over the hard sciences..

They have been represented as post modern nonsense. They have been represented that way b/c they are interested in soft sciences which answer malleable ever changing soft questions. That is nonsense compared to the cold hard logic of math.

So he’s wrong because his thought hasn’t been accepted by the majority? That sounds like the appeal to majority you yourself responded to in question four of your initial post.

Welcome to what hard science calls peer review. Your peers are going to test your theories and ideas and try to disprove your claims. All science goes through this process and until you reach the other side you are not going to be taken seriously. Call it the major leagues that land people on the moon and make a serious attempt to define the known universe.

My point with all of this is that you’re making statements about science I have so far not seen you support. Yet you scoff at Feyerabend simply because the majority of scientists do not accept his theory that physics is no different to Greek cosmology.

Between the domains of religion and science, stands the philosophical perspective of metaphysical cosmology. This ancient field of study seeks to draw intuitive conclusions about the nature of the universe, man, god and/or their relationships based on the extension of some set of presumed facts borrowed from spiritual experience and/or observation. Since metaphysical cosmology borrows facts from spiritual experience it is no where near science.

Let us define science and philosophy before we continue this debate:

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic). The word itself is of Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), a compound of φίλος (phílos: friend, or lover) and σοφία (sophía: wisdom)

Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. Examples of the broader use included political science and computer science, which are not incorrectly named, but rather named according to the older and more general use of the word. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

Let us start with the obvious. If they are so close why do there root words mean completley differnet things?

philosophy and science both rely on reason and rational argument.

True. The difference is philosophy does not always use empirical evidence. It can become opinionated. Philosophy does what religion should do and that is think logically about about spiritual things. I do not HATE philosophy I just want to point out that science and philosophy are TWO seperate fields.

10. How do I disprove evolution?

This is VERY simple. Dig down to the Jurassic or Cambrien layers of the Earth and find me a modern day human skeleton. A modern day dog skeleton. It is that simple. In all of the fossil beds and dig sites all over the world there has YET TO BE a fossil that is out of place in evolution. That is to say that the oldest layers of the Earth hold fossils of the simplest creatures. The upper layers get more and more complex until you get the present layer. Complex vertabrates are NOT found in the Pre-Cambrien layers.

This doesn't exactly have to do with evolution but... We haven't found a fossil out of place of course, but haven't we found other objects where they shouldn't be?

I'll have to look around but i remember reading about there being this perfect cube found sumwhere in a layer of rock,, footprints, etc.

I know this doesn't really relate but it came to mind while reading that :p

They have been represented as post modern nonsense. They have been represented that way b/c they are interested in soft sciences which answer malleable ever changing soft questions. That is nonsense compared to the cold hard logic of math.

Don’t get me started on the horror of the history of mathematics. All I will say is this, if you belief mathematics is cold hard logic, then you’re completely unaware of Godel’s infamous incompleteness theorem. It was a belief of Frege, Russell and Whitehead that mathematics can be deduced to logic. Godel comes along and proves that if mathematics is combined with logic, then the logical system will either prove fallacies or be incomplete and not able to prove everything valid. Hence mathematics is not reducible to logic.

An interesting thing about the soft sciences and the scientific method, on a side note, is the discussions that have been going on since Dilthey's day about whether or not the method is applicable to society or if sociology needs its own method. This raises interesting questions about the limits of the method.

Welcome to what hard science calls peer review. Your peers are going to test your theories and ideas and try to disprove your claims. All science goes through this process and until you reach the other side you are not going to be taken seriously. Call it the major leagues that land people on the moon and make a serious attempt to define the known universe.

Using the very method that is being critiqued to prove the validity of said method seems somewhat circular to me.

Let us start with the obvious. If they are so close why do there root words mean completley differnet things?

If you bothered to do research beyond fiddling around with a dictionary, you would know that there was no real distinction between science and philosophy until the 17th century, when to categorize vast amounts of information, terms such as ontology were created. The scientific method, which became truly distinct in the 17th century, was the result of Aristotle, Descartes, Francis Bacon and Sir Isaac Newton. However, philosophers continue to contribute to the method and reason about whether it’s the best method for attaining an accurate picture of reality, what its purpose is, etc.

This doesn't exactly have to do with evolution but... We haven't found a fossil out of place of course, but haven't we found other objects where they shouldn't be?

I'll have to look around but i remember reading about there being this perfect cube found sumwhere in a layer of rock,, footprints, etc.

I know this doesn't really relate but it came to mind while reading that :p

Which is explained by them being contaminated with modern artifacts.

If you go to an Egyptian pyramid and see a TV there, what's more reasonable to believe? That it was contaminated (i.e. someone from modern times left a TV there inadvertently or on purpose) or that the Egyptians had TVs?

That's ignoring the fact that it might not have been a TV (i.e. footprints and cubes, outside this analogy):

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC102.html

observational evidence, mathematical models and quantitative data > other arguments

I can agree with BrokeProphet's refrence to the non-empirical philosophical discussions as not entirely grounded in empirical surety and fact; I'll admit I often find my interest in philosophy at odds with my atheistic views towards supernaturalism.

In terms of exploring our intellectual capabilities, however, one should not discount philosophy. Of course, for exploring our reality in terms of empiricism, the 'hard sciences' are on the forefront.

I've not got anything to add at the moment besides my views are currently being shown by Hare Geist.

I'm done.

I'm an atheist, but why do so many atheists so strongly hate religion? It seems they have the same blind belief which they criticize religious believers for.

I'm an atheist, but why do so many atheists so strongly hate religion? It seems they have the same blind belief which they criticize religious believers for.
Tell me more about this blind belief your atheism rests on.

Tell me more about this blind belief your atheism rests on.

I think he means the blind belief that Religion is wrong.

I think he means the blind belief that Religion is wrong.
What blind belief that religion is wrong?

What blind belief that religion is wrong?

What?

Sorry, I don't understand the question, don't spose you'd rephrase it for me?

Don’t get me started on the horror of the history of mathematics. All I will say is this, if you belief mathematics is cold hard logic, then you’re completely unaware of Godel’s infamous incompleteness theorem.

I will trust math more than I will philosophy as being correct. Dont get me started on the horror of the history of philosophy.

Using the very method that is being critiqued to prove the validity of said method seems somewhat circular to me..

You question the validity of peer review? It is not perfect b/c the parts that make it up are imperfect (human peers). What peer review does is assure that invalid or false statements stay away from the body of scientific knowledge.

What would you propose instead of peer review? Is your only problem with it that the quacks you drone on about cannot make it through the filter of bullshit that is peer review.

Fact is that with enough evidence even the staunchest opponent of someone undergoing the review will have to concede. If you do not have enough empirical evidence or your methods are questionable you will remain a quack only followed by a few psuedo-intellectuals who envy the prestige that is awarded real science.

If you bothered to do research beyond fiddling around with a dictionary, you would know that there was no real distinction between science and philosophy until the 17th century, when to categorize vast amounts of information, terms such as ontology were created. The scientific method, which became truly distinct in the 17th century, was the result of Aristotle, Descartes, Francis Bacon and Sir Isaac Newton. However, philosophers continue to contribute to the method and reason about whether it’s the best method for attaining an accurate picture of reality, what its purpose is, etc.

Yes there was a distinction made between the two in and about the 17th century dividing what we know as philosophy and science. I am glad you admit that science and philosophy are considered separate in this day and age.

If you fiddled a bit MORE with a dictionary or history book you would also realize that in and about this time science separated its principles in astronomy, and chemistry from astrology and alchemy as well as many other psuedo sciences.

Science began to pull away from things that are too loosely organized to fit into the calculating methods of science. The world is a technological marvel today b/c of these distinctions between science and philosophy, alchemy, and astrology to name a few.

I think philosophy is needed. I do not dislike philosophy. I merely pointed out that science and philosphy are not the same and not to be confused. I know many philosphers out there have tried to grab sciences coat tails and argue that they are not just wind bags but should be taken seriously because what they propose is "scientific". This is a web of shit that hopefully is a bit more untangled.

Godel'ls theorem is an argument that all experts in mathematical logic have long rejected as fallacious.



Where the fuck are you getting that ridiculous information? That is not true, at all.

Where the fuck are you getting that ridiculous information? That is not true, at all.

I know I pasted something up there that was not true before I did more research on Godel. It was the first site I went to involving a proponent of Godel who is seen as a quack.

He is seen as a quack b/c the scientific community of peer review has labeled him a quack. Name of Penrose as I recall. Good 'ol peer review.

I know I pasted something up there that was not true before I did more research on Godel. It was the first site I went to involving a proponent of Godel who is seen as a quack.

He is seen as a quack b/c the scientific community of peer review has labeled him a quack. Name of Penrose as I recall. Good 'ol peer review.

What Penrose? Roger Penrose? If so, then to call him a "quack" is ridiculous as well.

Yes, he has been wrong in some of his postulations, like when he tried to refute AI with Godel's theorems, but that hardly makes him a quack. Einstein was wrong in many things (like the "ether" or not accepting Quantum Mechanics for example). That definitely does not make him a "quack".

What Penrose? Roger Penrose? If so, then to call him a "quack" is ridiculous as well.

Yes, he has been wrong in some of his postulations, like when he tried to refute AI with Godel's theorems, but that hardly makes him a quack. Einstein was wrong in many things (like the "ether" or not accepting Quantum Mechanics for example). That definitely does not make him a "quack".

My understanding is that he tried to refute Godel. This was a foolish mistake. This was a bit quackish. MY POINT is that peer review stopped his foolish quackish mistake from getting through makin him look like a bit of a quack/ cunt.

This is the primary point I was making. Any other bit of semantic side tracking argumentative bullshit you would like to vomit on my screen?

My understanding is that he tried to refute Godel. This was a foolish mistake. This was a bit quackish. MY POINT is that peer review stopped his foolish quackish mistake from getting through makin him look like a bit of a quack/ cunt.

This is the primary point I was making. Any other bit of semantic side tracking argumentative bullshit you would like to vomit on my screen?

:rolleyes:

You thought Godel was wrong, hence Penrose refuting Godel would have been correct, based on your initial erroneous statements. If you're talking about after you noticed this mishap, then:

Penrose wasn't refuting Godel. He was using Godel's theorems (i.e. taking them as true - which they are) and using them to refute the possibility of Artificial Intelligence ever reproducing consciousness.

Please spare me this utter bullshit about semantics, when I've argued nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out how you were wrong. How fucking ironic that you have a huge boner for peer-review, yet result to childish attacks when you've been shown to be wrong.

P.S. You initially said "It was the first site I went to involving a proponent of Godel", which makes no sense if you're saying you thought Penrose was trying to refute Godel. Either you have no clue what "proponent" means, or you're just blindly backtracking on what you've said because you know how foolish you looked. There, now you can say I'm arguing semantics to successfully prove you're a fucking moron. Congratulations.

You have diverged this from the point of the original debate. That is what I mean by vomitting semantical, side tracking horseshit.

I am wrong I admit that but that is not why I call you a semantical, side tracking cunt. This is:

I am wrong about what P did with G's theory. My point is that when P seemed to be wrong about X involving G's theory peer review held him in check. Peer review is valid and a good system.

THAT IS THE MAIN POINT.

This makes what you are doing............semantical, argumentative, side tracking, cuntshit........does it not? :)

I "diverged" because I was correcting your mistakes. Am I supposed to not correct your mistakes for fear that you'll get your panties in a bunch for slightly diverging from the topic? If anything, correcting your glaring mistakes was a pretty fucking good argument in favor of peer-review in the first place.

Instead of accepting the corrections and moving on (like someone who appreciates the process of peer-review would), you decided to throw a hissy fit, which not only served to diminish your argument in favor of peer-review, but side-tracked it even further. Congratulations.

Again as I said P made a mistake on X concerning G and it is not allowed into accepted scientific knowledge due to peer review.

My perceived behavior or even my behavior itself does not diminish my argument, nor the point I made. Argue the argument and not the person presenting it. The above P,X,G scenario lays out my point showing the semantics (what you argued) to be unimportant, in regards to the point of the debate itself.

If it makes you feel better you were right regarding the semantical information in the argument. You get to be right today in that regard but must accept the fact that you are arguing semantical bullshit.

Will you not accept that?

1. You made an erroneous claim about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. I pointed out how that was wrong.

2. You claimed that Penrose was a "quack" simply because he was wrong in some specific regard. I pointed out how that's a ridiculous characterization to make.

Those are the facts. Do either of those mean that I'm saying peer review is wrong, or unimportant, or that you haven't made a point in that regard? No. That was not the goal of my statements. I never intended to show how the peer review process hasn't prevented false claims to be allowed into accepted scientific knowledge. I know it has - my very review of your errors is a good example of that.

The goal was to correct your mistakes (i.e. "peer-review"), which I did. Like it or not, that is important to the overall debate at hand, because, to take point one as an example, it goes directly to Hare's argument which is supported by Godel's theorems. You being wrong in the claim that Godel's theorems are "fallacious" is totally relevant and important.

You want to call what I did"semantical bullshit" to make yourself feel better because you don't like the fact that you made a fool out of yourself by talking out of your ass? Go right ahead. Keep derailing the thread by not gracefully admitting your mistakes and shutting the hell up. Praising peer-review and at the same time characterizing it as "semantical bullshit" when someone does it to you is only making you look like a fool.

Does anyone have any reading suggestions for a theist looking to grow up, beyond a science book?

Actually they could do worse than start by actually fucking reading the bible.

Reading it in the same way they'd read any other historical document or hell, even the daily paper.

Actually they could do worse than start by actually fucking reading the bible.

Reading it in the same way they'd read any other historical document or hell, even the daily paper.

I think a lot of damage could be gained from reading it so literally. What you should consider it is historical fiction, as historical fiction contains refrences to historical events but allows for greater realms of 'creativity' within these events.

I think a lot of damage could be gained from reading it so literally. What you should consider it is historical fiction, as historical fiction contains refrences to historical events but allows for greater realms of 'creativity' within these events.

Where did I say 'literally'?! Or do you read the daily paper and accept every word on the page as it stands?

I said read it like any other historical document, which it is. That means reading and trying to discern when, where, why it was written and for whom and what evidence etc etc etc blah blah.

You want to call what I did"semantical bullshit" to make yourself feel better because you don't like the fact that you made a fool out of yourself by talking out of your ass? Go right ahead. Keep derailing the thread by not gracefully admitting your mistakes and shutting the hell up. Praising peer-review and at the same time characterizing it as "semantical bullshit" when someone does it to you is only making you look like a fool.

Ah, hahaha.

You're wasting your time. :rolleyes:

I seriously hate you; you annoy the fucking shit out of me.

I seriously hate you; you annoy the fucking shit out of me.

Geez, Anirak. Don't you realize that's EXACTLY the reaction he's trying to get out of you?

Geez, Anirak. Don't you realize that's EXACTLY the reaction he's trying to get out of you?

Well he's a christian; that shouldn't be his goal.

Well he's a christian; that shouldn't be his goal.

Shouldn't be, but is, nonetheless.

Having a religion doesn't exempt human beings from having malicious goals. It may help cover their tracks sometimes, to those who aren't paying close enough attention.

Shouldn't be, but is, nonetheless.

Having a religion doesn't exempt human beings from having malicious goals. It may help cover their tracks sometimes, to those who aren't paying close enough attention.

Well that sort of hypocrisy is the very thing that angers me.

Out of curiosity, what part of the south are you from? I just moved from Louisiana to Boston; I had lived there my whole life.

Wow, you must be experiencing some major culture shock! Right now I live in Little Rock, Arkansas - but was born and raised in New Orleans, Lafayette and Morgan City.

Bet the Bostonians dig your accent :D

Wow, you must be experiencing some major culture shock! Right now I live in Little Rock, Arkansas - but was born and raised in New Orleans, Lafayette and Morgan City.

Bet the Bostonians dig your accent :D

I must say I love it up here, and only a few people have even mentioned my accent. Most say it's not as bad as they thought southerners were. It's nice a nice change going from knowing only 1 atheist to knowing only 3 christians.

Edit: I was from a place near shreveport. Maybe you've heard of Monroe?

I must say I love it up here, and only a few people have even mentioned my accent. Most say it's not as bad as they thought southerners were. It's nice a nice change going from knowing only 1 atheist to knowing only 3 christians.

Edit: I was from a place near shreveport. Maybe you've heard of Monroe?

Yep! I gamble in Shreveport. Know exactly where Monroe is.